PTAB

IPR2019-00805

Olympus Corporation of the Americas v. GENERAL ELECTRIC TECHNOLOGY GMBH

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Ultrasonic Inspection Probe Carrier System for Performing Non-Destructive Testing
  • Brief Description: The ’383 patent discloses a carrier system for an ultrasonic probe used in the non-destructive testing of tubes and their welds. The system features a carrier with a curved base and two biased side arms designed to removably secure the carrier around a tube, allowing an attached ultrasonic probe to be rotated around the tube's circumference for inspection.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Dobrynin - Claims 1, 3, 6, 11-14, 17, 21, and 23 are anticipated by Dobrynin.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Dobrynin (SU 1233035).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Dobrynin, which was not considered during prosecution, discloses every element of the challenged independent claims. Dobrynin describes a "Device for Non-Destructive Inspection of Cylindrical Products" that functions as an ultrasonic probe carrier. Petitioner asserted that Dobrynin's "base 1" is "semi-cylindrical" and thus meets the "curved base" limitation. Dobrynin’s spring-loaded "gripping arms 3" are pivotally attached to the base, function as the claimed first and second side arms, and are biased toward each other by "spring 12" to secure the device around a cylindrical product (tube). An "ultrasonic transducer 5" (probe) is mounted on the base, and the entire device is manually rotated to inspect the product's circumference, meeting the final limitations of the independent claims.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Dobrynin and Simmons - Claims 2, 8, and 27 are obvious over Dobrynin in view of Simmons.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Dobrynin (SU 1233035) and Simmons (Patent 8,146,430).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Dobrynin teaches the base system as outlined in Ground 1. For features in dependent claims not explicitly in Dobrynin, Simmons supplies the missing elements. Specifically, Simmons teaches a "couplant fluid supply line" to facilitate ultrasonic coupling (as required by claim 2) and discloses a "relatively low profile" sensor design that permits inspection of a tube even when surrounded by other tubes (as required by claims 8 and 27).
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Simmons’s features into Dobrynin’s device because both references address the same technical problem of ultrasonic tube inspection. A POSITA would have been motivated to add Simmons’s couplant system to Dobrynin to achieve the well-known and predictable benefit of improved signal quality. Similarly, modifying Dobrynin's probe to have the low profile taught by Simmons would be a simple design choice to enhance the device's utility in crowded environments, a predictable improvement.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involves applying conventional techniques (couplant fluid, low-profile design) to a known system to achieve predictable results.

Ground 3: Anticipation over Simmons - Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 11-14, 17, 18, 21, 26, and 27 are anticipated by Simmons.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Simmons (Patent 8,146,430).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: As an alternative primary ground, Petitioner argued that Simmons, also not considered during prosecution, anticipates the challenged claims. Simmons discloses a "Method and Apparatus for Conveying an Ultrasonic Sensor about an Outer Peripheral Surface of a tube." Its flexible tension link, which "take[s] on an arc shape that generally wraps around" the tube, meets the "curved base" limitation. The apparatus includes distal and proximal linked elements (first and second side arms) that are urged toward the tube by spring pairs, thereby biasing them to secure the carrier. Simmons explicitly teaches attaching an "ultrasonic sensor" (probe) and moving it "circumferentially around the tube" to scan for welds, meeting all limitations of the independent claims. Petitioner further contended that Simmons also discloses the specific limitations of the challenged dependent claims, such as using couplant fluid (claim 2) and having a low-profile design for use near adjacent tubes (claims 8 and 27).

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations of Dobrynin or Simmons with other references. These included combining the primary references with Dubbeldam (Application # 2009/0145249) to teach adding a wheel-based encoder for precise position feedback, and with Daoud (Patent 4,944,485) to render obvious the use of a specific "torsion spring" for the biasing force.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "tube": Petitioner proposed construing "tube" to mean "a cylindrical body." This construction is based on the ’383 patent’s specification, which states the term can include "any cylindrical body," and is supported by standard dictionary definitions. This broad construction allows Dobrynin's disclosure of inspecting "cylindrical products" to be mapped directly onto the claims.
  • "curved": Petitioner proposed construing "curved" to mean "having an arc shape." This is consistent with the patent's description of the base and was a key term used by the applicant during prosecution to distinguish prior art that was allegedly "flat and linear." Petitioner used this construction to argue that the semi-cylindrical bases of both Dobrynin and Simmons meet this limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-14, 17, 18, 21-23, 26, and 27 as unpatentable.